Kevin: I agree.
My post was mainly an expression of my frustration with Sander's failure to poke the other side (Clinton) in the chest when she tries to make "socialism" a dirty word (like Newt did to the honorable and storied word "liberal"; even to the point where liberals are running from it and calling themselves "progressives").
Sanders is stating his case, but he's not calling out the hypocrisy of the people who own Jeb and Hillary. There was a time in America when "socialism" was just as honorable and storied as "liberal" used to be (founding fathers, liberal, every one). But the captains beat it down with their goons. Now the useful idiots support the captains for the very reasons set forth by the captain's alleged hero, Adam Smith, so long ago (Wealth of Nations) (a great philosopher, by the way, but misconstrued by those who believe unbridled greed is good; the Ayn Rand types).
Elizabeth Warren is good at poking the other side in the chest, articulating a case to the masses in a way that makes them say "Yeah, I never thought of it that way but, yeah, those captains are FOS."
I'd love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket with a little John Stewart thrown in.
It's all good.
Kevin: You actually agree with me but your lack of analytical reading skills and understanding of history caused my post to fly over your head. (And, in addition to your double tap, it's of, by and for, which was part of an Address, not an organic document. You stand corrected.)
Bernie Sanders is a natural response to the failure of a free people to control themselves. If those who champion the idea of capitalism actually acted in accord with their principles, by accepting personal responsibility for their own actions (cost internalization) and exercising enlightened self-interest, ala Adam Smith, then there would not only be no Bernie Sanders, there would be no need for government.
As it is though, those who champion the idea of capitalism like to socialize their costs (to that extent they are socialists) and avail themselves of big government protection from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions (corporate limited liability). They think they can defy the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own boot straps and they are so ungrateful, inconsiderate, disrespectful and ignorant of fact, as to think they can be self-made men.
No one wants to be controlled except, possibly, through self control. However, while external efforts to control may manifest notwithstanding, it is clear that a failure to exercise self control will definitely engender those external efforts. A free people will inevitably bring attention to themselves.
The question then is this: If you were to be controlled, would you rather be controlled by “the people”, of which you are one, pursuant to democratic socialism and the leadership of folks like Bernie Sanders? Or would you rather be controlled by a political elite such as Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, et al, who are themselves controlled by those who champion the idea of capitalism but who are actually cost-externalizing, irresponsible socialists who parade around as risk-taking captains of daring-do?
So, it's democratic socialism (Sanders) or socialism (Bush/Hillary)?
Self control/people control, or external control by “them”?
Off Topic: I think the Independent should consider allowing anonymous letters and posting. Yes, I am aware of the down side to that; all of it (including accusations of cowardice). I've debated it extensively elsewhere. However, I also think the threat of boycotts, threats to innocent family members, being ostracized, and adverse government action certainly chills my willingness to speak freely. Our founding fathers were in accord. Some of their more persuasive arguments were submitted under pseudonyms or anonymously due to fear of Loyalist intimidation, loss of business, hostility in the community and the threat posed by King George's troops. Comments could be moderated for persuasion just to keep the trolls out. Food for thought.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation